Taral wrote: >Veracity: UNDECIDABLE Angling for a paradox win?
>The statement assumes that a violation can necessarily be assigned to >specific parts of a message, which is a false assumption. Rule 2149 >itself states "the truth or falsity of the whole is what is >significant." This argument suggests TRUE to me, not UNDECIDABLE. But I think you have a poor interpretation of the statement. The more sensible interpretation is that the legality of the part message is to be determined in the context of the whole. Hence FALSE: a part message that quotes another message might, depending on the rest of the message, result in a rule violation. Indeed, a quotation might be the most significant part of the message in constructing a rule violation. -zefram
